Alan Cox wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:44:21PM -0500, Jay Cliburn wrote:
I've not heard a peep as a result of my patch submittal. Is there
another kernel mailing list I should be watching on which I'd have seen
the patch applied? (I watch -ide, -scsi, and netdev.)
I'd guess it got ignored as it was already in the upstream trees.
Thanks for noticing the PATA ident was missing I've poked Andrew and Linus
and it should be resolved for .18.
Alan,
Maybe I should've just kept my mouth shut about the whole thing, because
it now looks like there are *two* 1106:0591 lines in the 2.6.18-rc4-mm3
version of drivers/ata/sata_via.c. It doesn't seem to cause any harm,
though, since I'm running rc4-mm3 on the system right now.
This patch removes one of the dupes.
[jcliburn@osprey kernel-2.6.18-rc4-mm3]$ diff -u
linux-2.6.18-rc4-mm3/drivers/ata/sata_via.c
linux-2.6.18-rc4-mm3-work/drivers/ata/sata_via.c
--- linux-2.6.18-rc4-mm3/drivers/ata/sata_via.c 2006-08-31
16:21:40.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc4-mm3-work/drivers/ata/sata_via.c 2006-08-31
18:13:24.000000000 -0500
@@ -80,7 +80,6 @@
{ 0x1106, 0x0591, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, vt6420 },
{ 0x1106, 0x3149, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, vt6420 },
{ 0x1106, 0x3249, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, vt6421 },
- { 0x1106, 0x0591, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, vt6420 },
{ } /* terminate list */
};
To whom should I submit the patch that fixes this, or, more generally,
who is the correct recipient for patches in the new drivers/ata tree?
Thanks,
Jay
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
